If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

IMO - in today's environment this would classify as an entitlement, big time .

To me the only difference between this and the ridiculous deals that CEOs get is that in this case the taxpayers pay instead of the consumer and the stock holder. It's what happens when the guys in charge are the ones deciding their own pay or their buddies on the board are going to bat for them. Either way its wrong.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

To me the only difference between this and the ridiculous deals that CEOs get is that in this case the taxpayers pay instead of the consumer and the stock holder. It's what happens when the guys in charge are the ones deciding their own pay or their buddies on the board are going to bat for them. Either way its wrong.

To me the only difference between this and the ridiculous deals that CEOs get is that in this case the taxpayers pay instead of the consumer and the stock holder. It's what happens when the guys in charge are the ones deciding their own pay or their buddies on the board are going to bat for them. Either way its wrong.

BIG difference Buzz. I guarantee you if taxpayers were allowed to vote where their tax money would go, they would not vote for it to go to such bureaucrats. Both stockholders and consumers WILLINGLY buy the goods and services of the companies managed by the CEOS. They have a choice to buy somewhere else and to invest somewhere else. A fact which progressives, liberals, socialists ALWAYS IGNORE.

To me the only difference between this and the ridiculous deals that CEOs get is that in this case the taxpayers pay instead of the consumer and the stock holder. It's what happens when the guys in charge are the ones deciding their own pay or their buddies on the board are going to bat for them. Either way its wrong.

We had this conversation at our house yesterday as the boss asked why I consistently vote NO on most proposals.

BOD members who are past or present member of a public institution receive a NO most times unless they are in a field helpful the product.

Past elected officials & military men also receive a NO.

Auditors & increases in compensation also get a NO.

Shareholder proposals are decided on their merit but mostly NO.

They can buy stock the same way we get ours, on the open market.

Does it help? I'd like to think it does as I see more companies looking at how they compensate folks, but no one has called me for my opinion .